SHOULD WIFE TELL?

Auckland Star, Volume LXX, Issue 80, 5 April 1939, Page 9

SHOULD WIFE TELL?

. COURT SAYS YES. I EFFECT ON SLANDER CASES. RIGHT WHEN MARRIAGE j " ENDS." (By Air Mail.) I i J LONDON", March 12. , ,; Three men have decided that the' •secrets you now share with your wife '.may not always remain secrets. If 1 'your marriage ••comes to an end" she ■' may be for<-ed to toll. ■ The three men were the Master of; I the J.'olls. Sir Wilfrid (ireene. Lord Jus--1 1 ice Fiiilay and Lord .lustice Liixmoorr r average a.uo jii-t ovor l>o. And Sir Wil- ! • frid (ireoiip u> p<l the word, "come* toj •|an end"' referring to a case in which -■the husband had died, r But the phrase, lejjal experts ennijsider. may also apply in a case wherei s ; a husband or wife is divorced. So be careful what you tell your wife. She' may some day b<? compelled to reveal «:>t. jj These are the circumstances in which e the decision came to be made in the Court of Appeal. l . In November Mrs. Florence Annie i> Shenton applied to the Court- for per-t'mi.-Mon to ])iit certain questions—"<leD'livor interrogatories'' the law calls it — L . to Mrs Kdith Lilian Tyler, a widow. I'JMr-. Shenton wanted to establish thatj fi when Mr. Tyler di c<l leaving Mrs. Tyler] d £70.0(10. lie left it subject to a promise; s tliat Mrs. Shenton should receive £2 a "'week. Mrs. 'fyler denied that her husband had made any Mich communication tn. her ;n:<l relied on what lias Keen regarded l ■ jir-; an a'_ r c-'>ld rule of law that a wife 1 cannot l>e forced to di-Mo~e any coin-: - munieyt ion.- mad' , to her by her hu>1 band. Mr. -hi.-tice Simonds agreed with; ■ Mrs. Tyler and refused permission forj i Mr*. Shenton to put her questions. ; i Mr-. Sheiitun appealed against his ]

, ! The Master of the Kolls. giving judg-! merit, .-aid that it was claimed that the rule, or privilege, protecting communications between a husband and wife ex-ji-ted even when death ended the marriage. He had examined all the pos I sible authorities on whether the privilege existed after the marriage had jcome to an end and he had decided that ; it did not. I Although in modern times the existence of this rule ],■,<] Ihtm a.-.-umed I>>many lawyers, it hud iiexer cxir-ted. lie [explained that his judgment was based! [largely on material that was not before] Mr. .TuHl ice Simonds. 1 Lords Justices Kinhiy and Luxnioore coneurre<l au<l the appeal was allowed' i with costs. Mr.-. Shcutnii can now "de-l [liver interrogatories" to Mrs. Tyler. ; Now how does thU atl'cct you and 1 your wife? j ; A expert said: ' ; As an example.! take the i|iie>tion of >lnnder. A hu.-lian<l' cannot be sued for any statements maile' ! to his. wife because tllo-c' >tateuientc jare accepted a> coiili<lential. Now. after lii.» death, or ]>erhaps after divorce, they may well be accepted a* evidence. "It i« now ]>rovide<l by statute that 'itlie wife or husband of a per-on eharsed; 'may give evidence for the defence—but lonlv on that person's application. I . ''in certain cases a wife may also be I compelled to give evidence for the pro-i sedition. But even then neither need answer questions about each other.' .